\section{Transition and Innovation}
\label{sec:innovation}
Transition and innovation seems complementary to each other. Geels and Schot explain that innovation plays an essential role to enforce transition, which in return opens many windows for new innovations \citep{GEELS}. The dependency of innovation on transition and vice versa is clearly explained in the transition theory section. In this section we will try to explore different innovation concepts to provide a common language for discussing the most important aspects of a transition. \bigskip

\noindent Different researchers have defined innovation in their way. Joseph Schumpeter defines innovation with the concept of ``new combination'' as:

 \begin{quote}
 
 \textit{``(1) The introduction of a new good - that is one with which consumers are not yet familiar - or a new quality of a good. (2) The introduction of a new method of production, that is one not yet tested by experience in the branch of manufacture concerned, which need by no means be founded upon a discovery scientifically new, and can also exist in a new way of handling a commodity commercially. (3) The opening of a new market, that is a market into which the particular branch of manufacture of the country in question has not previously entered, whether or not this market has existed before. (4) The conquest of a new source of supply or raw materials or half-manufactured goods, again irrespective of whether this source already exists or whether it has first to be created. (5) The carrying out of new organization of any industry, like the creation of a monopoly position (for example through trustification) or the breaking up of monopoly position.''}  \citep[p.142]{ALIN}
 
 \end{quote}
 
\noindent On the basis of this definition, one can see ICN as an innovation in an Internet world that is in an embryonic stage. The development of innovation highly depends on behaviour of actors. Joseph Schumpeter coined the term `creative destruction' where he explains,

\begin{quote}

\textit{``[t]he opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop and factory to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation-if I may use that biological term-that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.''} \citep{SCHUMPETER}

\end{quote}
This clearly describes that with innovation, new ideas and opportunities are generated, whereas the older ones are closed or left obsolete. This also provides a path for argument that the actors of existing regime will act as a barrier in innovation.\bigskip

\noindent We have already described that the acceptance of transition in socio-technical environment also depends on the type of innovation. Furthermore, understanding different types of innovations will help us to analyse the type of ICN innovation and also will embrace us with a clear vision towards answering our research question.

\subsection{Differentiation of Innovations}

\cite{FARIBORZ} have tried to explore the relationship between types of innovation and organizational performance from a socio-technical systems perspective. They argue that \textit{``[...] to maintain the balance between the social and technical system, changes introduced in the two systems [administrative and technical] should be congruous''} \citep[pp. 588-589]{FARIBORZ}. Furthermore, Trist concludes that \textit{``a one-to-one correspondence between administrative and technical innovations is not advocated; however, a balance in the rate of adoption of the two innovation types is presumed to be necessary to ensure equilibrium between the social structure and the technical system for effective operation of the entire organization''} \citep[p. 589]{FARIBORZ}. This description also supports the role of different organizations in a socio-technical transition.\bigskip

\noindent Schilling categorizes innovation in four dimensions \citep[pp. 43]{SCHILLING}:

\paragraph{Product Innovation versus Process Innovation:} Product innovation is demonstrated in the output of the company, its goods or services, whereas process innovation is internal and often deals with the process of production or process of doing business. 

\paragraph{Radical Innovation versus Incremental Innovation:} It is one of the m{\-}ajor dimensions used to differentiate innovations. Radical innovation offers completely new products, processes or technologies that are new to the conceiver. On the other hand, incremental innovation is more about adding some extra features to the existing one without making major change. One example of incremental innovation is the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. Schilling argues that the radicalness and incrementalness of innovation also differs over time or with respect to different observers. \textit{``An innovation that was once considered radical may eventually be considered incremental as the knowledge base underlying the innovation becomes more common''} \citep[p. 44]{SCHILLING}. This dimension also acts as a base for one of our argument about ICN as a radical approach or incremental approach.

\paragraph{Competence-Enhancing Innovation versus Competence-Destroy{\-}ing Innovation:} An innovation is competence-enhancing if it develops on the basis of existing knowledge whereas it is competence-destroying if it is not developed on the basis of existing knowledge.

\paragraph{Architectural Innovation versus Component Innovation:} The idea behind this dimension is viewing an entity as a system of components. So, if the innovation is seen in component level without affecting the overall architecture then it is component innovation whereas if the innovation is seen in system level that affects overall architecture then it is architectural innovation. Our research topic provides very solid argument for this dimension where Internet is a system with lots of components in it. Lots of innovations have been seen within Internet (innovation in network performance, equipments etc.) without affecting the overall architecture i.e. host-centric and on the other hand the proposal for ICN can be seen as an architecture innovation. \bigskip

\noindent This description of different types of innovations will enhance us for meaningful argument on ICN in analysing our research field. Furthermore, in the case of architectural innovation one can also argue that components of a system can play major role in locking-in users. One of the reasons can be high switching costs, which also compels business drivers to follow same path as the predecessors.  

\subsection{Diffusion of Innovations}
A discussion about diffusion of innovations becomes inevitable after discussing the concepts of innovation. The reason for including this theory is to understand how new ideas get adopted. \bigskip

\noindent Rogers defines diffusion as 
\begin{quote}
\textit{``[...] the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system.''} \citep[p. 5]{ROGERS}
\end{quote}

\noindent This definition by Rogers clearly depicts that diffusion of an innovation is based on four key components: innovation itself, communication channels, time and social system. Rogers explains that the rate of adoption of an innovation can be increased by influencing the innovation decisions of the users. He defines innovation-decision processes as \textit{``the process through which an individual(or other decision-making unit) passes from first knowledge of innovation, to forming an attitude toward the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new idea, and to confirmation of this decision''} \citep[p. 162]{ROGERS}. Furthermore, Rogers expresses three different kind of innovation-decision for adoption of innovation:

\textit{``}
\begin{description}
\item[Optional innovation-decisions]\textit{are choices to adopt or reject an innovation that are made by an individual independent of the decisions of other members of the system.}

\item[Collective innovative-decisions]\textit{are choices to adopt or reject an innovation that are made by consensus among the members of a System. All of the units in the system usually must conform to the system's decision once it is made.} 

\item[Authority innovation-decisions]\textit{are choices to adopt or reject an innovation that are made by a relatively few individuals in a system who posses power, status to technical expertise.} 


\end{description}
\textit{''} \citep[p. 29]{ROGERS} \bigskip

\noindent In addition to these three innovation-decision processes, Rogers brings in a fourth type i.e. contingent innovation-decision, which is the sequential combination of two or three types of innovation-decision \citep[p. 31]{ROGERS}. \bigskip

\noindent Adoption of innovation also forms an important part of the socio-technical regime. One can argue that adoption of innovation in a complex system like the Internet is highly occupied by contingent innovation-decisions, where \textit{``the first decision is of an authority sort followed by a collective decision''} \citep[p. 31]{ROGERS}.

Rogers also defines different attributes that determine the rate of adoption of innovations. These attributes can be used as bullet points for increasing the rate of adoption of an innovation. These attributes are \citep[p. 35]{ROGERS}:

\begin{itemize}

\item Relative advantage
\item Compatibility
\item Complexity
\item Trialability
\item Observability

\end{itemize}

\noindent Furthermore, Rogers also presents a model of the Innovation-Decision process. In this model he depicts five stages for innovation-decision making; knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, confirmation. We will not go in detail with these processes, but it makes sense for us to understand the user behaviour in the adoption of technology. As our research is focused on deployment of ICN at a socio-technical level, this innovation-decision process will help us to analyse innovators' attempts to influence the innovation-decision process for adoption of ICN.



  